Activist Butts In on Londoners

Waking up reeking of cigarette smoke after a night out on the town may be a thing of the past for Californians. But smoking remains an integral part of Britain’s pub culture--and it’s allowed just about everywhere else.

Perhaps not for long, if a determined UC San Francisco professor has anything to do with it.

Stanton Glantz, a key player in passing California’s ban on smoking in bars, workplaces and public buildings, urged London on Thursday to implement similar regulations.

“The fact that these laws have worked so well in California means they can work anywhere in the world,” Glantz told a committee of the Greater London Assembly--the equivalent of a city council or board of supervisors. “It’s ready to happen here in London.”

The hearing was a preliminary inquiry into curbing smoking in public places in London. Right now, no laws restrict smoking in bars, restaurants or other places, although many eateries choose to have nonsmoking sections.

Passing such a law falls under the authority of Mayor Ken Livingstone; the Greater London Assembly is investigating the issue and will make recommendations in December.

On a day when British newspaper editorials called Glantz the “arch-creep” and “high priest of the American anti-smoking movement,” members of the committee challenged Glantz at almost every turn. He seemed unfazed by the criticism, saying that even simply engaging in the debate shows London’s interest in restricting smoking.

“Actually, in this country we try to accommodate everyone as long as what they’re doing is legal,” said Angie Bray, a Conservative Party assembly member and smoker. She said a ban on smoking amounted to an infringement of civil liberties--something that might go over in the United States, she said, but wouldn’t work in more tolerant Britain, where about 1 in 4 smokes.

Prompting chuckles from the audience, Glantz countered, “We have a saying in America that goes like this: Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” He argued that secondhand smoke causes severe health problems, such as cancer and heart disease.

“I’m all for freedom and civil liberty,” Glantz said. “But people don’t have the right to poison other people.”

Lynne Featherstone of the Liberal Democratic Party asked how far such restrictions could go. She said she had visited a beach in Carmel where smoking, eating and listening to radios were prohibited and said that amounted to a “no fun” policy.

But at the end of the hearing, Featherstone approached Glantz with a handshake and said she had been “completely converted.”

Advocates of smoking curbs say that most Londoners want some restrictions on smoking but aren’t as supportive of a complete ban. A survey made available to the assembly members and conducted this year by SmokeFree London, an alliance of government and nongovernmental agencies, shows that 97% of Londoners want restrictions on smoking in restaurants and cafes.

Of those, 43% want a complete ban and 54% want a mainly smoke-free environment with special smoking areas. In pubs and bars, the survey says, 74% of Londoners want restrictions, of which 18% want a complete ban and 56% want special smoking sections.

These figures, along with recent interest in the issue by British tobacco-control advocates, lead Glantz to believe that London is ready for a California-style ban. He said that Londoners would come to like the policy because it makes it easier for people to quit smoking and creates a more pleasant indoor environment.

But such restrictions will only work if implemented in stages, Glantz said. He said that workplaces should be made smoke-free first, then restaurants and finally, a couple of years down the line, bars should join the ranks of smoke-free environments.

“I’ll be very surprised if a couple years from now London hasn’t gone through with this,” he said.